March 7, 2018FWWA – Green Bay, WI
Presented by,Joseph Pfeiffer, PWS
`
Context and Definition
Guerilla Tactics – The application of unconventional approaches by small groups of individuals against a larger more formidable opponent that seeks to utilize the strengths of the opponent against itself.
Restoration of Ecosystem Function
We understand the enemy…..We have the commitment…….We have the weapons……
But……..we are an insurgency
We are at War……
Grand Lake St. Marys – Mercer County, OH
Grand Lake St. Marys 21 square mile man made lake in
West Ohio 52 square mile watershed 425 million in agricultural production 125 million in tourism
Key issues Excessive nutrient loading resulting
in Hypo-trophic condition in lake and watershed
Blue Green algal blooms producing mycrosystin toxins
Grand Lake St. Marys – Mercer County, OH
Grand Lake St. Marys – Mercer County, OH
Impacts Algal blooms shut down all use
of the lake in 2009/10 Estimated loss of $77 million to
local economy Loss in housing value of 25
million No Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae
funding for homes in proximity to lake
Identified public health threat
Grand Lake St. Marys – Mercer County, OH
Ohio Governor Strickland News Conference – July 30, 2010
The Daily Standard Celina, Ohio
Grand Lake St. Marys – Mercer County, OH
Primary Responses State of Ohio TMDL Emergency watershed regulations
put into place NRCS funding of conservation
practices Local formation of the Grand Lake
St. Marys Restoration Commission
Grand Lake St. Marys Strategic Plan
Commissioned by LRC
Focused on Comprehensive Approach
Strong Emphasis on Economic Viability
Included both Economic and Ecological Drivers
Cornerstone Elements Simultaneous and coordinated attack
Historic residual problems Existing processes Future Direction
GLSM Strategic Plan - Tactical Diagram
Conceptual Ecosystem Revitalization Model - CERM
Strategic Plan - Weighting Matrix
Economic Benefit Potential (weight -15%) Eco-Tourism, Recreational Use/Capacity, Research, Business Establishment High – 20 pts Moderate – 10 pts Low – 5 pts N/A – 0 pts
Scale of Effect (weight - 10%) Regional – 100 pts Watershed – 50 pts Local – 20 pts
Lag time to Functional Effect (weight - 10%) Immediate – 100 pts <12 months – 60 pts 12 months – 2 years – 40 pts >2 years –pts
Term of Effect (weight – 15%) 1 to 5 years - 20 pts 5 to 10 years – 40 10 to 20 years – 60 pts Permanent – 100 pts
Economic Value Estimate (weight – 45%) >$10 million – 100 pts 5 to 10 million – 60 pts 2 to 5 million – 40 pts >2 million – 20 pts
Implementation Strategy – (weight - 5%) TIF – 50 pts Grant – 30 pts Stimulus – 40 pts Public – 20 pts
Strategic Plan – Matrix Prioritization
LRC Economic Scale of Lag Time to Term of Economic Implementation TotalProject Benefit Effect Functional Effect Effect Value Strategy Score
Littoral Wetland Restoration 8.25 5 6 15 45 2.5 81.75Sequestration of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus 6.75 10 10 3 45 2.5 77.25
Dredge Sediment Depositions 7.5 5 2 15 45 2.5 77Beneficial Use of Organic Waste 7.5 5 6 9 45 4 76.5Treatment Train Establishment 7.5 5 6 9 18 2.5 48
Rough Fish Removal 5.25 5 10 3 9 2 34.25Algal Flipping 8.25 5 6 3 9 1 32.25
Aeration and Circulation 8.25 5 6 3 9 1 32.25Water Level Management 8.25 5 6 3 9 1 32.25
GLSM Consolidated Action Plan
Grand Lake St. Marys Strategic Restoration PlanRe-vitilization focusIntegration of existing efforts
NRCSOEPALake Improvement Association
Self perpetuating approach (economically sustainable)
Consolidated Action Plan – Matrix Prioritization
NRCS Water Quality Scale of Lag Time to Term of Nutrient Load Implementation TotalProject Benefit Effect Functional Effect Effect Removal Strategy Score
Cover Crops 12 8 10 3 45 5 83Conservation Tillage 9 8 10 3 45 5 80Manure Management Technology 12 6 6 6 45 1.5 76.5Filter Strips or Riparian Buffers 12 8 6 9 27 2 64Filter Areas 12 6 6 6 27 4 61Wetlands 12 3 4 15 18 2 54Tile Control Structures 6 5 6 6 18 4 45Milkhouse Wastewater 6 2 6 6 18 4 42Lawn Fertilizer Reduction 12 1 10 3 9 5 40Septic Systems 12 1 10 3 9 5 40Streambank Protection 9 6 6 3 9 5 38Nutrient Management Plans 9 4 6 3 9 1 32
OEPA Health/Welfare Scale of Lag Time to Term of Nutrietn Load Implementation TotalProject Benefit Effect Functional Effect Effect Removal Strategy Score
Lake Alum Treatment 3 10 10 6 45 5 79Hydrogen Peroixide/ Alum Treatment 3 10 10 6 45 5 79
Dredging 3 10 2 9 45 1.5 70.5Constructed Wetlands 3 2 10 9 27 1.5 52.5Controlled Drainage 1.5 2 10 9 27 1.5 51
Treatment Systems on Tributaries 3 2 4 9 27 5 50Restoration of Buffers and Streams 3 2 6 9 27 1.5 48.5
Filter Strips/Areas (*FOTG 393-Designed) 1.5 2 6 9 27 1.5 47Grassed Waterways 0.75 2 6 9 27 1.5 46.25Conservation Tillage 0.75 2 6 3 27 1.5 40.25
Manure Handling and Storage 1.5 2 6 9 18 1.5 38Shoreline Maintenance 0.75 2 6 6 18 2.5 35.25
Tributary Alum Treatment 1.5 2 6 3 18 4 34.5Conservation Planning 1.5 2 4 6 18 1.5 33
Aeration or Water Column Circulation 0.75 10 4 3 9 4 30.75Cover Crops 1.5 2 4 3 18 1.5 30Drawdown 0.75 10 4 3 9 1.5 28.25
Nutrient Management Plans 0.75 2 2 3 18 1.5 27.25
Consolidated Action Plan – Project Priority Ranking
Provides Comprehensive Project list
Does Not Negate Individual Plans
Basis for Political Action Plan
TotalProject OEPA LRC NRCS Score
Dredge Sediment Depositions 88.5 77 83 248.5Sequestration of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus 82 77.25 87 246.25Beneficial Use of Organic Waste 81.5 76.5 82 240Dredging 70.5 82.5 83 236Hydrogen Peroixide/ Alum Treatment 79 76.5 75 230.5Lake Alum Treatment 79 75.75 75 229.75Manure Handling and Storage 52.5 75.5 83.5 211.5Conservation Tillage 49.5 50.5 80 180Manure Management Technology 49.5 50.5 76.5 176.5Tile Control Structures 56.5 74.5 45 176Constructed Wetlands 51 45 79.5 175.5Treatment Systems on Tributaries 50 42 81.5 173.5Filter Areas 56.5 47.25 61 164.75Tributary Alum Treatment 35.25 44.25 83.5 163Cover Crops 39 29 83 151Treatment Train Establishment 50 48 51.5 149.5Wetlands 29.5 64.5 54 148Filter Strips or Riparian Buffers 43.5 40.25 64 147.75Rough Fish Removal 56.5 34.25 54.5 145.25Conservation Tillage 40.25 42.25 56.5 139Filter Strips/Areas (*FOTG 393-Designed) 47 39.75 50 136.75Restoration of Buffers and Streams 48.5 37.25 50 135.75Milkhouse Wastewater 48 41 42 131Controlled Drainage 46.25 30 50.5 126.75Lawn Fertilizer Reduction 49 35.5 40 124.5Cover Crops 34.5 44 42 120.5Grassed Waterways 38 28.75 51 117.75Nutrient Management Plans 43 41.25 32 116.25Algal Flipping 49 32.25 32 113.25Streambank Protection 38.5 33.5 38 110Septic Systems 35.5 33.5 40 109Aeration and Circulation 36.5 32.25 32 100.75Water Level Management 36.5 32.25 32 100.75Conservation Planning 33 35.5 27.5 96Nutrient Management Plans 27.25 31.5 29.5 88.25Aeration or Water Column Circulation 30 28.75 27 85.75Shoreline Maintenance 30.75 28.25 22 81Drawdown 28.25 31 21 80.25
LRCOEPANRCS
Consolidated Action Plan - CRA
Developed 8 Critical Response Actions to address Chemical Treatments Dredge Accumulated Sediments Beneficial Use of Organic Waste Watershed Best Management Practices Rough Fish Removal Lake Manager Natural Resources Capital Improvement Program Water Pollution Control Loan Fund Economic Infrastructure
Specific Response Action Implemented
Alum TreatmentSolar BeesPrairie Creek Treatment TrainPrairie Creek Littoral WetlandCold Water Creek Treatment Train
Alum Treatment
Alum Treatment
Alum Treatment
Solar Bees
Solar Bees
Prairie Creek Treatment Train - PCTT
Prairie Creek Treatment Train
Engineered Mechanical Pumping
o 4 MGD Bio-Technical
Constructed Wetlandso 10 acres
Natural Restored Wetlands
o 30 acres
Prairie Creek Treatment Train - PCTT
Prairie Creek Treatment Train - PCTT
MAID System Controls pumping into system Doses chemical as required Tracks water quality
Ph Turbidity Flow rates
Allows remote monitoring and control
Prairie Creek Treatment Train - PCTT
Constructed Wetland Cells Five cells, alternating deep and
shallow water
Prairie Creek Treatment Train - PCTT
Results 65% reduction in Total Phos 30% reduction in Total N Trophic shift in embayment
Prairie Creek Treatment Train - PCTT
Prairie Creek Littoral Wetland - PCLW
Basic Design Deep and shallow marsh
system Designed to improve Fish and
Wildlife habitat Will receive flow from PCTT Encapsulation of nutrient laden
sediment
Prairie Creek Littoral Wetland - PCLW
Prairie Creek Littoral Wetland - PCLW
Coldwater Creek Treatment Train - CCTT
Cold Water Creek Treatment Train
Engineered Mechanical Pumping
o 6 MGD Bio-Technical
Constructed Wetlandso 15 acres
Flow Diversion Natural
Restored Wetlandso 250 acres
Coldwater Creek Treatment Train - CCTT
Coldwater Creek Treatment Train - CCTT
Results
Restoration Investment Investment of over 7 million in response efforts by project partners
In lake Alum treatment Development of systems to treat nutrient loading No major blooms since 2010
Economic Response Estimated Return on Investment of nearly 65 million to local
economy Initiation of multiple corporations using stressors as material Lowest un-employment rate in Ohio (4.9%) 20% increase in tax collections 32% increase in real estate conveyances Resurgence of recreational economy hotels, restaurants,
facilities, events
Adaptive Management Plan
No Plan Survives First Contact
Re-Evaluation of Plan Premises
Re-Affirmation of Partners
Re-Engagement of Stakeholders
Conclusions
Ecosystem restoration is a societal endeavor not just a rural initiative
Solutions to mitigate the existing problem and resolve the future ones must integrate the concepts of sustainability and economics
Collaboration between key stakeholder groups is imperative to generating and sustaining momentum to win the war
QUESTIONS